Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 4th, 2016

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

We're good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Okay.

David.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to start off our committee in a sense of co-operation. I understand that two minutes isn't a lot of time, especially when you represent your community. Obviously we all have communities that want to be represented. I like the suggestion that we be more fair. I think your suggestion is noteworthy and the right way to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion before I ask the question?

Go ahead, Charlie.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

What is the question you're asking? Do we have a proposal? Can we read that proposal? Is that the question you're talking about it, or are we talking about the original one, because before I vote on anything, I want to know what I'm.... I don't want to make a mistake here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

My question to you, Charlie, is this. Are you proposing an amendment to the motion? Then, can you be specific about what that amendment is? Then I want to test the committee's appetite to amend the motion.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I would say we adopt the motion that was in the previous committee. It worked well then. I never heard that there was an unacceptable problem, and again if time runs out, time runs out, and guess who's going to pay. Therefore, I move:

That the witnesses from an organization be given up to ten (10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair to make their opening statement. During the questioning of the witnesses, there shall be allocated seven (7) minutes for the 1st round of questioning and thereafter five (5) minutes shall be allocated to each questioner in the 2nd and subsequent rounds of questioning. That the order of questions for the first round be as follows—

You have NDP first there. I don't mind being moved back to....

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

From that point on, go in that order, then we're in the ballpark.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It would be Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Liberal in the first round. In the second round, it would be Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Liberal, NDP. Those would be five-minute rounds at the discretion of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Okay, Charlie, that adds up to 51, and that's within our purview to make that change. We have an amendment to the motion on the table, and I would like to ask the.... Oh, that is three in the final slot for NDP, for fairness, to reflect what PROC had recommended.

Very good. That adds up to 51 minutes: seven on top, five on the bottom, with three in the last line.

Is it the committee's pleasure to adopt that amendment to the motion? Is there any dissent?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

[Inaudible—Editor] importance we're going to put into one minute. In all fairness, with the amount of time, Charlie's going to have an awful lot of time to speak. He's the only representative. The rest of us are going to be dividing this time up.

I know he feels he is being shortchanged, but by granting more time, I think the rest of us are going to feel a little bit shortchanged too. I know this is historically the way it was done, but how many people do we have sitting around the table? And there's one person.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I think my honourable colleague raises an excellent question. I don't mind talking about this all night. If we want to talk about consensus, or we want to talk about an alternative way of sitting around the table, I'll talk all night about it.

It doesn't really matter to me how the Liberals divide up their time. It really doesn't matter to me. You have a majority. You could be the main speaker on a question, and you could be the second speaker. It doesn't matter to me.

What matters to me is that we respect the standing traditions that allow the opposition parties their places. We might not be comfortable with that. That's a great discussion. As I said, I'm not going anywhere. I'll sit and talk about it. I'll talk about all possible alternatives.

But with the idea that you're going to use your majority to tell me you're not comfortable with the New Democrats getting a chance to speak, we're going to have issues, and I don't want to have issues. I want us to work collegially. I care passionately about these issues.

I came into politics to talk on behalf of the communities I represent that have been screwed over and ripped off and denied basic services for years, and I'm not going to give up that extra two minutes to be more collegial to a party that has a very large majority and who can override me anytime they want.

I thought we had voted. Did we not vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

It was unclear, so I want to go back to a show of hands.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Do we have motion? I'm willing to vote on the motion. If you want to not vote on the motion and discuss your idea of consensus, fair enough. We can discuss that.

I think we should vote on the motion and test the room. If not, we'll go to your idea, and then we'll see how that goes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Is there a consensus that the committee wants to adopt the amendment to the motion? Let's have a show of hands.

Michael, do you want to have some words on that?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I'm just making the point, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Angus is making the point that he needs more time for his party. Granted, that's something that was done historically.

I'm saying that, in fairness, he's one individual who's going to have a lot more time than I'm going to have every time we have a go around, so where's the fairness in that? I don't have the luxury of being around as many committees as he has. I have to take his word that this is the way it will be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

I understand your point, Mike.

I think there's a certain logic to each of the positions, but in the end, we're talking about the party, really, not the individual here, and the time should be reflected that way. I'm sympathetic to that point of view myself; but we'll find out, in a moment, with a show of hands.

Mike.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

A great amount of deliberation was given to this format that was developed for the questioning of witnesses, but it doesn't have to stand forever, either. The committee can decide. You can test this format, see how it works, test the waters, and after a few months say that six minutes just isn't time to talk to people; we need seven minutes, more time in order to really explore the serious nature of these issues. This isn't written in stone. This is something that, once again, was given deliberation to.

I understand Michael's concerns that one individual on the other side would have more time. I get that. At the same time, we are trying to establish a different tone as to how our government will work. Maybe right now we go the way that Charlie wants it, and then in three months we could say, you know, this isn't fair and it's not the way we want this to work. The committee at that time could revisit it and determine that they want to go in a different direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thanks for that, Mike.

I want to wrap up the conversation on this one, if I can.

Are there any final comments, Charlie?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I don't know what we're talking about now. We're talking about consensus. My colleague Mr. Bossio is talking about going to six minutes and revisiting it in three months, and talking about seven minutes and revisiting it in three months, so I don't know—

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'm saying both of them.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I don't want to sound like a cranky old guy from the Old Testament days of back in 2004, and 2006, and 2008, and 2011, but I have to say that I have never been on a committee that ever went back and looked at the standing orders once they adopted them. Once you've adopted the standing orders, they are in stone.

That's why I am being so difficult. I don't want to be difficult. I want to work collegially with you guys, but I have to remind my colleagues that once these rules are in, that becomes the operating standard culture.

I'm not here as an individual. I'm here representing the New Democratic Party, the third party. There are standards in the Westminister tradition of how we establish the places that each party has in the standing rules so that there is fairness, so that you don't get squashed like a bug just because there's a supermajority and now we're all in the same thing together, because we know we're not. My colleagues are there to represent the interests of the government. They will do that. They will do that faithfully and honourably, I'm sure. My job is to represent the interests of the New Democratic Party, to make sure our interests are brought forward on legislation, on reviews, and we bring that clear counter-voice.

I don't want to talk about this forever. I'd like to get to a vote. I thought we had a motion. I put forward a motion. If we don't want to do that motion, we can talk about other options, but as I said, we could talk about this forever. I'm not a very good skater, but man I can talk. I never get tired talking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

All right. Thank you.

By the way, we don't need 100% consensus to pass an amendment or a motion. It's majority.

We'll call that question again in a moment, but first, Gary.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

We [Technical difficulty—Editor] what PROC had agreed to. I know there was extensive discussion at that committee. All parties were represented. There was a fair and equitable distribution of time.

In fairness to the work that they did and the consistency that I think would exist in all the committees, I would revert to their actual decision and follow the protocol they set for all the committees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Okay.

You're supporting in spirit what Charlie is saying. The order is different, so it's a little bit different from PROC, but it's the same spirit as PROC.

We'll have a final comment from Rémi, and then we'll call the question.